David is a bit slow on the uptake, since we reported on the “US Congress probe” several days ago. He also seems not to have taken on board any of the copious quantities of evidence that his “climate data that duped world leaders over global warming” allegations are the purest fantasy. This time around Mr. Rose claims, amongst other things:

Last week Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, admitted that notwithstanding the Pausebuster, it was clear ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’.

The online version of the Mail on Sunday have just published a “correction” to the most egregious of their long list of recent errors and inaccuracies. It reads as follows:

On February 19 we reported a Met Office official’s announcement that the average global temperature in January 2017 was about the same as in January 1998. In fact, this was incorrect, and the temperature was 0.25C higher.

So there you have it. This buck doesn’t stop on David Rose’s desk, or Benny Peiser’s desk, or John Wellington’s desk, or Geordie Greig’s desk. We’re expected to believe it stops on an unidentified desk of an unknown official somewhere inside the UK Met Office.

6 thoughts on “Climategate 2 – Episode 3 of David Rose’s Epic Saga”

The January numbers for HadCRUT 4.5 have finally come out. The global anomaly was 3rd highest for the month (behind Jan 2016 and Jan 2007) and thus clearly proves the continuing well-being of the “paws”.

On the 14th Feb, I put up a comment on the Global Surface Temperatures thread of the ASIF concerning both the HadSST and the BEST datasets. The Jan 2017 data points on each of these was the second highest January value for the relevant dataset.

In Rose’s malodorous article, he claimed that the HadCRUT values for 2017 and 1998 were just about identical. As has been pointed out, this would have involved something akin to time travel, as the HadCRUT figures were not published until a couple of weeks after the publication of the Mail article.

Of course there could just be an astonishing coincidence at work here, but I rather suspect I may have found the real reason behind his cock-up.

The HadSST figures tend to come out several weeks in advance of the equivalent HadCRUT figures, so that could easily explain where Rose obtained the incorrect value. Seems like he is incapable of telling the difference between a Land+Ocean dataset and an Ocean-only dataset, and it would be ever so embarrassing to have to own up to such a brainless mistake.